3086 Purchase LLC v. The Town/Village of Harrison, et al.

Background

3086 Purchase LLC sought a pre-motion conference concerning a proposed motion to compel nonparty Keane & Beane P.C. (K&B) to search its electronically stored information using Purchase LLC’s proposed search terms, provide hit counts, and confer about refining the search protocol. Purchase LLC had served K&B with a subpoena seeking communications with officials from Defendant Town/Village of Harrison. K&B produced roughly 144 documents.

Old Oaks Country Club, Inc., which K&B represented in the action, opposed the request. According to Old Oaks, K&B identified relevant custodians who had interacted with the Town and conducted a document-by-document search of their communications with Town officials over an agreed date range. The search included known private email addresses used by Town officials when appropriate.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require parties and nonparties to conduct reasonable and proportional searches for responsive documents. Those rules generally do not allow the requesting party to dictate the search method. The relevant question is whether the search was reasonable and proportional, not whether another method might have produced better results.

Purchase LLC did not identify a particular Town official, email address, custodian, data source, or responsive communication that K&B had failed to search or produce. The court therefore found that Purchase LLC’s desire for greater visibility into the adequacy of the production did not justify requiring K&B to conduct a second review using Purchase LLC’s preferred search-term and hit-count process.

The court distinguished cases in which search terms and hit counts were already part of an ongoing negotiation or dispute. Those cases did not establish a general obligation to produce hit counts when the responding party had used a different search method.

The court also stated that a responding party must provide enough information about its search to allow a meaningful assessment of whether the search was reasonable. The court did not decide whether K&B had already provided enough information about its custodians, sources, date range, and search method.

Ruling

The court denied Purchase LLC’s request to compel K&B to run the proposed search terms and provide hit counts. K&B must provide, within seven days of the Order’s entry: (1) the custodians searched; (2) the data sources or accounts searched; (3) the date range applied; (4) the Town officials whose communications were searched; and (5) the method used for the document-by-document search and review.

K&B does not have to disclose privileged material, run Purchase LLC’s proposed search terms, or provide hit counts. If Purchase LLC identifies a specific deficiency after receiving the information, the parties must meet and confer in good faith. The Order does not require any particular supplemental search. If the parties cannot resolve a remaining issue, Purchase LLC may raise it under the court’s Individual Practices. Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik dated the Order August 19, 2026.